4 ms·

"Of the hundreds of thousands of posts being written each day, there are maybe 5 at best that don't completely suck." I'm sorry, but that's just silly. 1) You'

"Of the hundreds of thousands of posts being written each day, there are maybe 5 at best that don't completely suck." I'm sorry, but that's just silly. 1) You're not reading the whole internet, 2) you're not the intended audience for much of what's written, and 3) opinions vary. Are you proposing we replace the free market of authors and readers with some central judging authority? How would these people filter through all this content, on what basis would they judge it, and how would they be funded? How do we protected against government meddling and political bias? This is a pretty big problem you're creating to replace a system which, basically, seems to work fine. It would be nice to help creators make money, but you can't fix human taste.

Alex3917 16y ago
"Are you proposing we replace the free market of authors and readers" We don't have a free market of authors and readers. Readers don't currently pay authors, this is what needs to change. "How would these people filter through all this content, on what basis would they judge it, and how would they be funded? How do we protected against government meddling and political bias?" Not sure. "This is a pretty big problem you're creating to replace a system which, basically, seems to work fine." I don't think it works fine at all, judging by the fact that all of our biggest problems are marketing problems. In any given area of society the science is between 25 and 100 years ahead of the status quo.
- billybob 16y ago
  "We don't have a free market of authors and readers. Readers don't currently pay authors, this is what needs to change." OK. But 1) readers are free to reward authors IF they want to, and 2) authors can potentially make money from their readership by selling ads and t-shirts, getting speaking gigs and job offers and holding conferences, etc. So there's freedom, and there's a market. If people don't value something enough to pay for it, you can't force them to value it. They have a right to their own opinions. Sure, 99% of authors make zip. But I bet a larger percentage of the population makes money creating stuff on the web than they did when you had to have a publishing deal to publish anything. My point with "how would they be funded" was this: either it's voluntary or it's not. If you want to create a voluntary system, great - try to market some kind of micropayments thing or whatever. But if a committee is making the decisions about what's good, and I have no input, the only way I can see for them to get my money to put into the prize pot is to tax me. And I'm opposed to that, both because it's my money and because I distrust this hypothetical committee. What enlightened people do you imagine should be officially blessing The Best Of The Web? I bet my list is different from yours. Oh! I know! Let's have lots of committees! In fact, let's all be our own committee! Freedom of thought and whatnot! You see where I end back up? "I don't think it works fine at all, judging by the fact that all of our biggest problems are marketing problems." If you define 'people mistreat their neighbors for personal gain' as a marketing problem, maybe. I think it's a lot deeper than that. I'd call it a spiritual problem. "In any given area of society the science is between 25 and 100 years ahead of the status quo." Not sure what you mean by this, but science is a tool, not a solution. Psychology, for example, can help you understand what motivates people and how to influence them, but it can't tell you what SHOULD motivate people and how they SHOULD behave. It can as easily be used for evil as for good. Casinos use plenty of science to drain their victims of every last nickel.

Alex3917 16y ago

"Are you proposing we replace the free market of authors and readers" We don't have a free market of authors and readers. Readers don't currently pay authors, this is what needs to change. "How would these people filter through all this content, on what basis would they judge it, and how would they be funded? How do we protected against government meddling and political bias?" Not sure. "This is a pretty big problem you're creating to replace a system which, basically, seems to work fine." I don't think it works fine at all, judging by the fact that all of our biggest problems are marketing problems. In any given area of society the science is between 25 and 100 years ahead of the status quo.

billybob 16y ago
"We don't have a free market of authors and readers. Readers don't currently pay authors, this is what needs to change." OK. But 1) readers are free to reward authors IF they want to, and 2) authors can potentially make money from their readership by selling ads and t-shirts, getting speaking gigs and job offers and holding conferences, etc. So there's freedom, and there's a market. If people don't value something enough to pay for it, you can't force them to value it. They have a right to their own opinions. Sure, 99% of authors make zip. But I bet a larger percentage of the population makes money creating stuff on the web than they did when you had to have a publishing deal to publish anything. My point with "how would they be funded" was this: either it's voluntary or it's not. If you want to create a voluntary system, great - try to market some kind of micropayments thing or whatever. But if a committee is making the decisions about what's good, and I have no input, the only way I can see for them to get my money to put into the prize pot is to tax me. And I'm opposed to that, both because it's my money and because I distrust this hypothetical committee. What enlightened people do you imagine should be officially blessing The Best Of The Web? I bet my list is different from yours. Oh! I know! Let's have lots of committees! In fact, let's all be our own committee! Freedom of thought and whatnot! You see where I end back up? "I don't think it works fine at all, judging by the fact that all of our biggest problems are marketing problems." If you define 'people mistreat their neighbors for personal gain' as a marketing problem, maybe. I think it's a lot deeper than that. I'd call it a spiritual problem. "In any given area of society the science is between 25 and 100 years ahead of the status quo." Not sure what you mean by this, but science is a tool, not a solution. Psychology, for example, can help you understand what motivates people and how to influence them, but it can't tell you what SHOULD motivate people and how they SHOULD behave. It can as easily be used for evil as for good. Casinos use plenty of science to drain their victims of every last nickel.